David Axelrod appeared on Neil Cavuto’s broadcast yesterday and Cavuto posed the issue of abortion to Axelrod in reference to the positions held by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The issue of abortion in reference to Sotomayor — what her positions are on that significant issue — are largely a big guess, which means that it’s the playground ripe for a Leftwing pummeling of propaganda. Her positions on abortion, that is, could be anything that the Democrats and the Obama Administration want her positions to be sold-as in reference to her as nominee for the Supreme Court. “Make it work,” in other words, like shaping someone into what is the best-guess as to who’ll pass the questioning process, which has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with bad character when the effort is done with intention to deceive and mislead.
Axelrod revealed the game underway yesterday with his inability to maintain composure nor state anything lucid and believable when Cavuto asked him about this issue in regards Sotomayor. Up to the point of this question being posed to him, Axelrod spoke with his ongoing political posing that is familiar in the media, strongly worded statements, stream of speech.
But when Cavuto posed this issue to him — what are Sotomayor’s positions as to abortion (I paraphrase) — Axelrod mumbled, bumbled, stumbled and stuttered and flailed for any lucid statement, eventually making purchase upon a few generalized “change of subject” statements like “buy my car” (not what he said, in words, but he might just as well have said such).
So, here we go, the selling points today by the Left that Sotomayor is “Catholic” so it’s assumed that she’s going to be pro-life, or so the propaganda methods by the Left go: suggest a belief, allude to an association, and then coast on through to avoid revealing the truth of a person’s character and positions.
I plan to write more specifically in a few days, as a Catholic, about the rising pool of Leftwingers who pose as Catholics — going so far as to claim the faith, do the ceremonies, yell at questions doubting their associations and such — but reject Catholicism. There is a serious problem of credibility today by this group of Leftwingers (all of them, Democrats, to no one’s surprise) who sell themselves as Catholics while then supporting “non Catholic” positions. One is only as Catholic as one believes in and supports Catholic theology and the theology is what these people reject, thus, they’re not Catholics, however many years they’ve been occupying booths or using the Church as a social club for acceptability purposes. Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, these come to mind on this issue, among many others like them, unfortunately.
But to return to today’s post, here and now, about Sotomayor and what her as-yet-unrevealed positions are about abortion: she’s not revealing what those positions are, nor is Axelrod nor the other members of the Obama/Democrat group, because to reveal them would rock the support boat from all directions, so they’re (obviously) attempting to maintain a covert posture as to Sotomayor and abortion while attempting to allude to some credibility (or, “passing”) for Sotomayor as to being (a supposed) Catholic, while even such has yet to be and never has been revealed about her.
If she’s as Leftwing as her statements prove, to-date, that she is, she’s not a Catholic, not the real kind, but yet another one of those users of the Church whose appreciation for “faith” begins and ends with a primal need or demand for entertainment and cover. One cannot reject the Church’s theology and still credibly maintain that one is a Catholic, yet here we are today, many people such as this doing just that.
Among Catholic theology is the assertion and belief that life is created by God, that human life exists at the moment of conception, and that the act of abortion is murder — abortion is “intrinsic evil,” an act that is evil in and of itself. Rejecting that pivotal aspect among the Catholic theology is to ex-communicate oneself from the Church. Supporting that intrinsic evil, directly and indirectly, is to reject the Catholic theology that defines association with, affirmation of, evil as an ipso-facto act, or, by itself it is done, one ex-communicates oneself from the Church by engaging in the act itself.
Meanwhile, I’m sure that Catholic theology is not an issue or concern to David Axelrod and his apparent stumblingbumblingmumbling when asked a very simple question by Neal Cavuto reveals that Axelrod has a lot to hide. Like evil intents, for instance, lies crafted so well that the innocent are misled.